Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I really wanted the 1.6L ecoboost auto start/stop engine but with Intelligent Access and push button start but alas the 1.6L is only offered in the SE and IA is only on the Titanium which only offers the 2.0. Even the hybrid doesn't get push button start which I don't understand. So it will be a 2.0 Titanium for me fully loaded. Or maybe a MKZ but I'm not sure I can justify the added cost.
The 1.6L ecoboost with auto start/stop gets 26 city/37 highway on regular fuel. The hybrid gets 47/44. And the plug in hybrid version should be out in a few months.
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2022 Wrangler Sahara 4Xe, 2023 Toyota Tacoma SR 4WD
I like the styling of the new Fusion.
No dealer near me has one in stock,
but I may drive a Titanium before choosing...
Wish they offered a V6...
- Ray
Say a truck load of 2013 Accords this AM -
lok to me as good as they did in pictures & vids...
[ And a V6 option is offered.]
The 2013s haven't started shipping yet - should be any day now. The 2.0L Ecoboost should be very close to the same performance as the current 3.5L - maybe even a bit better.
The MKZ will get the 3.7L V6 if you just have to have the extra power.
At least you can still get the manual with the 1.6L EB. But not the 2.0L EB or the 3.7L in the MKZ.
Not if Honda designed the Accord's 6MT for fuel efficiency. For example, on a Mazda3 Skyactiv 6MT I tested, it was turning at only ~2000 rpm @ 65 mph in 6th. And it's a smaller, lower-power engine than the Accord has, so I expect the Accord would do better... if 6th is truly an overdrive on the Accord.
If the Accord's MT really does rev that high, then yeah, no way I'd go with that, would have to get the CVT. That's the problem I have with the new Impreza--MT is way too noisy/high revving compared to the CVT. But it's only a 5MT.
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2022 Wrangler Sahara 4Xe, 2023 Toyota Tacoma SR 4WD
One of my first Honda memories is from 1979. I was a freshman in hs, and a senior I knew with some money had a Prelude of that year and we went for a ride. Wow. Tiny, but the precision of the engineering floored me. At that moment I realized that Hondas could be something special...
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2022 Wrangler Sahara 4Xe, 2023 Toyota Tacoma SR 4WD
I lifted the info on pillar size out of a couple of different articles in C/D and M/T but I don't have the actual quotes. I think going back and forth about structural stiffness, high strength steel, aluminum, and magnesium is gonna bore everyone too tears, so I will bow to your post on safety standard particulars.
I just feel less confident on my lane changes in the Optima than I think any other car I have ever owned, and it affects my overall driving enjoyment.
Maybe I should look into and aftermarket camera system. Anything is better than crashing!!!
I already love the nod to Aston Martin with the grill design(even though Ford sold it's interest in Aston a couple years ago). I can't wait to start seeing them on the road.
I wonder how smooth the start/stop system on the 1.6 is in heavy traffic. Will it be smooth enough?
My car will look like dumbo... but then I can finally adjust out that blind spot.....or take flight....lol.
http://www.linquist.net/motorsports/tech/mirrors/
and Regular gasoline:
240 @ 5,500 (premium fuel) 231@5,500 (regular fuel)
[ NO difference in peak TQ ]
http://www.ford.com/cars/fusion/specifications/engine/
Really, really nice looking car, good spec's, nice interior. Great selection of power-train's as well, although I think there may be one too many, made necessary by the EPA.
Why would I want the 1.6? On roads around here I would be on the turbo a lot, and a mid-size Fusion, not to mention the Escape, is a LOT of car to get moving with such a small engine.
Can anyone tell me why all three are offered in the states? Wouldn't it be better to just offer the 2.5 and the 2.0T and not have a third engine to worry about?
Maybe it would be better to offer the 1.6T and the 2.0T and ditch the 2.5?
The 2.5L is a boat anchor and is basically just there for fleet sales and to take some of the volume pressure off the new EB engines.
In Europe the new Mondeo (same as the 2013 Fusion) gets the 1.0L EB so that makes the 1.6L sporty by comparison.
If they offered the 1.6L auto start/stop in Titanium trim I'd probably be ordering one.
Yes, I remember the old GM 2.5 pig "iron duke" workhorse from the 80's.
Boat Anchor. Hahaha. Oh, BTW I adopted your mirror settings. Will let you know how that goes. Made sense to me.
Back on topic. Yes, I am aware that in Europe a 1.6 is considered a nice size 4 cyl. 1.4 liters are common as well, and I am aware of the 1.4 turbo in Chevy's Cruse. (138hp).
I have to mention that my 2.4 GDI puts out 25 more horses and 11 more lb ft than Ford's 2.5, is rated at 35mpg (I observe 24 real life mixed) and sounds great doing it. I test drove the outgoing Fusion model prior to purchasing my Kia. The 2.5 was rough over 3500.
With the A/C on (at 99 to 103 degrees for a month solid) my Optima was still really sluggish off the line. This is why I asked about the 1.6 in the Fusion. It just seems needlessly expensive and complex that for only a 3 hp gain.
I know that you know your stuff Kirby. Just a counter point.
-Chris
1. hwy + 1.6 = 37mpg
2. 1.6 is the one I will buy because it is the only one with a mt. though, if the 2.0 came with mt I would buy it.
1.6 + mt = more fun then 2.0 + auto.
Wish they had a diesel engine choice w/ mt.
So, you guys wanna have fun while saving gas? Well, if your foot is in the turbo a lot in order to have fun then your MPG is not going to be 37....ever.
In the kind of traffic we have around here it would not be fun to drive most of the time, and you will still have to mash the throttle to:
1) activate start/stop to keep lag minimal off the line
2) to accelerate and keep up with traffic.
3)merge onto highway at 65/70 speeds.
4) you will have to stay in higher gears to keep the turbo on point, and once you slip down to 2000 RPM you end up with 3500lb driven by a 1.6.
Look, I LOVE THE FUSION....I just don't think the 1.6 makes sense in the real world here in America, land of Nascar LOL.
Also, my Optima get 24/35mpg. I am very pleased with that on a 200hp 2.4 GDI and a 6 speed auto with sport-tronic shift mode. I don't have to worry about turbo complexity and later on repairs associated with a force-fed engine having to survive at very high tolerances of heat.
I am gonna stop there. I want to go drive one with the 1.6 Eco-tech. I am really curious how it will perform, and I do NOT want to make things up. I would still have the 2.0 Ecotech 6spd auto. That's why I have a similar drivetrain on my Optima.
The auto start/stop starts the engine when you lift off the brake - not when you touch the throttle so there is no lag.
Maybe you guys should actually wait and drive one before bashing it to death.
A test drive would definitely be in order to determine how good the 1.6/manual combo is.
I know many of the same claims were made about the ecoboost f150 and after I test drove one I was more than impressed. I'm willing to bet the 1.6 will have some boost and torque available under 2krpm, but frankly few engines have much power under 2k rpm. My wife's 3.5 v6 powered Taurus doesn't have much power under 2k rpm either, basically enough to maintain highway speeds in 6th gear.
To bad Ford isn't offering the 2.0 turbo with a manual. I still wish they'd offer a v6.
Lets put it this way.
Would you buy this car with this 1.6 engine but without the turbocharger?
Do you plan on driving it just like your old car and plan to get 30 MPG city?
There is no way I would have this motor in my car. It would be under-powered and overworked. The engine will have to work so hard that after 5 years it will have problems.
The mid size cars that I see on the road around me here in the Mid-Atlantic are mostly 1.8/ 2.0 to 2.5 non turbo's on entry level cars.
On the upper Mid-size sedan market are 2.0T to 3.7 L V6 engines. The V8 is dead in this once V8 dominated market. I think we are going the right way towards protecting the environment around us, but can't we have a WEE-bit little more fun while doing it!!
-Chris
Insufferable Knowitall
"The engine will have to work so hard that after 5 years it will have problems."
I don't have a link, but I read an article in Auto News or maybe Wards Auto about a year ago about the engineering of Ford's Ecoboost engines. Ford's engine engineers know that these motors will have added strains placed on them, and they've designed them and built them accordingly. In other words, they've strengthened and made more tough and durable a lot of parts in them. That's why these Ecoboost engines cost more, because they cost Ford more to build.
In the long run—at closer to maybe 12 years and 150,000+ miles—I think you are right that some of these engines might have problems, and they are likely to be quite expensive to fix. But Ford is definitely trying to build them to go way, way past 5 years without problems. Ford's engine warranty, like most other makers at this point, is for 5 years and 60,000 miles. No way are they going to build engines that are likely to need to be repaired under warranty. And the PR nightmare of engines conking out a few years out of warranty is not something they will accept either.
I think Ford may be showing us a large part of the automotive future with small turbo engines in larger vehicles.
Here's one of Ford's "torture test" videos for the Ecoboost on a truck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epkCVPH1iRY
The problem is not heavy use. These engines are built to take hard use. The problem with turbos with direct injection seems to be if people just do short stop and go city trips without some full power hwy miles to blow out the build up. There's a chance that driving it like that might eventually give you gunk build up that could lead to problems, but supposedly they've even taken that into account to some degree.
My opinion on the capability of a properly turbo'd 1.6 gas in mid-sized vehicles is that if the engine has been built with sturdiness capable of the extra torque available (crank, rods, bearings, lube and cooling capacities, etc etc) then there is no reason they shouldn't last as long as a larger displacement NA engine. I don't know if they do the extras needed to help ensure this with the general public knowledge/ignorance as the real-world testers, but things like turbo bearing lubing/cooling features after the engine has shut down providing those necessities by the engines oil pump and coolant system, are crucial or there will be unexpected expense later on down the road.
I also think that due to the huge advancements made in lubrication and metallurgy over the years, has helped enable the potential use of these smaller engines in heavier vehicles.
As for lack of power under 2000 RPM, I doubt that will be an issue with the ECO 1.6 since it will be tuned to exploit its strengths at the lower revs..something turbos do by nature. Just as an example, the 1.4 Cruze turbo makes peak torque of apprx 145 ft lbs..forget exact figure, at about 1700 rpm I think it is. This, on a 3400 lb car give or take. In driving one, the torque is evident enough, you do not feel that the car is under-powered. Or most wouldn't, maybe I should say.
My main problem with the Fusion is this from Automobile magazine:
"...With its high beltline and steeply raked windshield and backlight, the Fusion can’t come close to matching the outward visibility of the new Honda Accord, but few can. Thick A-pillars and two-piece C-pillars compromise the driver’s view somewhat..."
Read more: http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/1209_2013_ford_fusion_first_drive/#i- - - - - - - - - xzz27EJhrkPn
I would go beyond "few can" and say that no competing midsize car can match the Accord's best-in-class visibility.
Rather than the bunker-like closed-in feel of many other midsize cars, the Accord is open and airy, and has great visibility. And you can roll your rear windows down almost all the way in an Accord. Try that in a Fusion, Altima, Sonata, Passat, etc.
And yet the Accord also has best-in-class safety with the ACE II body structure.
As some have said, you can just adjust and use your mirrors more carefully in these cars to help make up for the poor visibility. Fair enough.
The styling on the Ford Fusion looks great, and Ford's Ecoboost engines are excellent. I understand that for many the car is a very good choice....
But the greatest thing about the Accord is the starting price: a bit over $23k for the well equipped LX with CVT that includes sharp-looking alloys, backup camera, Bluetooth, Pandora, auto headlamps, and all the basic power features. Consider that's less than $1000 more than a Sonata GLS with alloys, and that doesn't have a backup camera. Plus the LX can be had with a 6MT (in only two colors, however :mad: ) for less bucks than the Sonata. I think Honda will sell tons of LXes.
http://geekbeat.tv/2013-ford-fusion-hybrid-startstop-and-ecoboost-first-drive/
And I think in the next couple of months the IIHS will release its video of the small offset crash tests of midsize sedans. My guess is that the Accord is going to come through pretty well on that, because Honda designed it to help passengers survive that kind of crash. I don't think the other manufacturers have done that yet, but we'll soon see.... Anyway, if that turns out the way some people are guessing it might, it could give the Accord a significant advantage in safety for a year or two.
The Accord LX with a stick is about the same price as the Sonata GLS with automatic. But I expect Honda will make very few of those 6MTs. The Sonata used to be offered with a 6MT but as of 2013 that's been dropped--just not very popular in mid-sized family cars.
2013 Sonata GLS w/alloys, etc.= 22495
2013 Accord LX w/ cvt= 23270
Giving us a difference of 775. Not much at all. And there are some things you get on the Accord, like dual climate control, back up camera, pandora, etc. that I don't think that Sonata has, although as you said the Sonata has heated cloth seats (!?).
Here are some other comparisons.
2013 Fusion 1.6 auto: 25,290
That's obviously 2k more than the Accord. I think this is the engine that's comparable in performance and mpg to the Honda earth dreams DI engine. And the Accord still beats the Fusion for equipment in a lot of areas.
2013 Passat w/alloys+ auto: 23,270. That's basically identical to the Accord, but the Passat has an old tech engine that gets only so so mpg and is said to be less refined.
Ford will need to ante up some incentives to sell the Fusion that's $2k more than the Accord, $3k more than something like an Optima. And the Altima is no slouch either.
In terms rear leg room, the 2013 Accord and Passat are pretty close in terms of numbers, at least according to Edmunds.com
Accord Passat
Rear leg room
38.5 in. 39.1 in
So there's a about half an inch difference there, but maybe the seat design on the Passat let's you put your toes underneath the seat more? Don't know.
But anyway, both seem pretty good on this measure, and quite a lot roomier than a Sonata, which I think has about 35 inches of rear leg room.
My bitter experience experience with a Jetta from long, long ago has lead me to write off the VW brand forever, I think, although I'm sure that today's VWs are much, much better. I'm actually quite happy with VWs success with their factory in TN.
The 2013 Accord CVT gets 5 more mpg than a 2013 Passat auto (30 combined mpg for Accord vs. 25 mpg for the Passat). That's about a $400-$500 a year difference in what you're going to pay for gas for these two cars. I think in about a year the lease differences between these two cars will get closer, but no doubt there will still be a gap.
I may be biased, but right now it looks to me like the 2013 Accord is the top of the midsize class overall, and if you want the best you can expect to pay just a little bit more....
I think may be it's just me because no one else mentions this. I don't need to go to see a optometrist after all.
A big factor in usable rear leg room is how the driver's seat adjusts. If it can go forward and high, and still provide good thigh support, then that opens up the rear seat more. That may be why rear seats appear similar "by the numbers" but in reality are much different. That's one reason the Versa, for example, has so much rear leg room.
Re gas, that's more important for some people than me, as I only put about 7,500 miles a year on my car (as my wife does on her car). So that's only about $200 a year at $4 a gallon. That would be made up for within about 4 months of car payments, comparing 2012 Passat S to 2012 Accord LX leases in my area. Also consider the Passat has 3 years of free maintenance, so you save a few bucks there.
There are some good choices in midsize cars, and I'd say the Passat is one of the better ones. How is the visibility from the driver's seat? It looks ok from the outside, but I'm guessing that from the inside it's only so so. Those small rear windows are questionable functionally. Or, at least the one immediately in back of the driver usually is.
185 hp on the Accord LX with the 6MT would be pretty lively, I bet. Plus if it's like typical Honda sticks it will be fun to drive. Finding one of those could be tough, though.
But through dealer trades you should be able to get, say, a manual EX, Sport, or LX....
Yeah, the Passat looks good from the outside in terms of visibility, but inside the little window right behind the driver is just not usable. Yes, you can adjust your mirror, etc. But I just prefer better visibility...
2013 Ford Fusion SE
1.6L turbo I-4 and 6M with 178 hp and 184 lb-ft
0-60 mph: 8.0 seconds
Quarter Mile: 16.1 seconds at 88.1 mph
Read more: http://wot.motortrend.com/by-the-numbers-2008-2013-ford-fusion-and-2002-ford-tau- - rus-265285.html#ixzz27QPb3H4j
2013 Accord Sport 6MT
0-60: 6.8 sec
Quarter Mile: 15.3 sec @ 92.3 mph
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1209_2013_honda_accord_first_test/vie- - wall.html#ixzz27QVPn4za
"The Fusion's most efficient engine — the 1.6-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder — is rated at 25/37/29 mpg city/highway/combined with a manual transmission and at 23/36/26 mpg with an automatic. Most Fusions will be sold with automatics."
The manual Accords are rated 24/34/28, which is a 1 mpg difference in combined mpg. To me 1 mpg is not much, but 1.2 seconds faster acceleration to 60 is significant.
The 2013 Fusion 1.6 auto is rated 26 combined. The 2013 Fusion 2.5 auto is also rated 26 combined.
The 2013 Accord 2.4 auto is rated 30 combined.
That's probably about $300-$400 a year. And so it's not a lot, but it's something....